Posted on 06/01/2005 9:27:48 AM PDT by UltraConservative
Absolutely not. On the other hand, neither should he be able to shut up the parishioners if they decide to proselytize to him.
Who says that the 10 Commandments constitute an establishment of religion? Are the people in the court house worshiping the 10 Commandments? Since one of the commandements is not to commit murder, is the law against murder a religion?
Where are Paris Hilton's parents and mentors to guide her with all of this ?
The Ten Commandments are to certain "Religions" as a Solid, Great Foundation is to a poorly constructed house. The foundations are essential and are fine. The people building on top of the foundations are the problem. They build dilapidated and flimsy houses that offer the occupants no peace, shelter or sanctuary.
Thank you... excellent read!
Does anyone remember Mae West?Not I, I go about as far back as Farrah Fawcet:
And Catherine Bach:
-Eric
Any reasonable person would conclude that an agent of the state, especially the punitive one, displaying one religious symbol over all others constitutes an endorsement of that religion. The law against murder is not religion, but is part of our legal code. We also have laws against theft. We do not have laws against adultery, lying (unless under oath) coveting, misusing God's name, etc. Should we display only those two commandments that are actually part of our legal code?
And what "religion" would the 10 Commandments be endorsing? I do not think of "religion" when I see the 10 Commandments... only a very reasonable moral code of ethics. I am a reasonable person and have never concluded that the 10 Commandments were an endorsement of a specific religion.
Sorry, but I am firm in my opinion about this and have seriously considered your side of the argument. I find your side to be shallow and without merit and an effort to shove amorality down our collective throats. I find it a dark day in the history of America when said document has been removed from courthouses across this country.
Hopefully reasonable people will prevail eventually and we will see the 10 Commandments reposted where they rightly belong, without the rediculous notion that somehow posting them constitutes a state sponsored religion.
The Ten Commandments for the most part is a reasonable moral code of conduct that should be taught in the home and church. The problem is, the courts exist to interpret, and hold people accountable to the laws as dictated by our legal code, not religious rules, however reasonable and common sensical they may be.
And how do their absence constitute equate to shoving ammorality down our throats? Do courtroom displays prevent the advertising industry from forcing risque Paris Hilton ads onto our airwaves? Does it prevent networks from showing more and more skin during prime time? I don't think so. The reality is sex sells, and will continue to be sold until consumers no longer buy it.
I have also seriously considered "your side," and I find it a heavy handed effort to shove judeo - christianity morality down our collective throats in an inapproriate forum for it. I believe in parental responsibilty and the power button approach to immorality. When enough people stop allowing this crap into their homes and minds, TV execs will try another approach. Until then, no court room display will curtail it in the least.
So, in this case, the fact that the one guy engages in conduct that the vast majority find highly offensive does not give the majority the power to silence him.
That is my larger point- rights are not subject to a veto by the majority, no matter how obnoxious the enjoyment of those rights by the minority might happen to be.
Your example stated that he was outside the church, not inside interfering with what was going on there. If he were inside and interfering then the majority would certainly have the right to silence him.
In the same line of thinking, keep pornography on channels that identify them as such and are limited to those who select them for viewing. To show a pornographic commercial on public airwaves where one cannot immediately decide whether to view or not just isn't acceptable. It takes the choice away from me, even if I grab the remote quickly enough to change the channel.
You see, I came from a time when the community could be counted on to back up the parents. We were on the same page so to speak. Neighbors reported misbehaviour to parents without being cussed out by the parents, the police could be relied upon to weed out the criminals, the courts prosecuted with regard to victims and not to the perps, schools were in alliance with the parents and vice versa. There wasn't any confusion... right was right and wrong was wrong. Most people knew the difference.
Parents are at a loss to find any support in society thanks to people who seem to feel our country need not subscribe to a moral standard. Taking a quick look around, the result of this thinking is quite apparent. People are appalled at the crimes young children are committing to just take one small example.
For ages those "religious" rules as you call them have been the standard for moral behaviour acceptable to an advanced society. Without them, we are just not as good as we once were and have become quite preoccupied with the basest behaviour we can muster.
I think you are giving parents are giving parents too much credit, you assume they are victims rather than part of the problem. The reality is many people have children for a number of reasons: because they are cute, because they want to have mini version of themselves running around, or because it is part of the societal norm. What many do not realize it takes A LOT of time and effort to raise that child to be productive member of society, and they are simply not equiped for the job. They may not want to devote time to the effort, may not know they have to, or simply not mature enough themselves to know what they are doing.
There is support out there for parents that know where to look. The schools are overburdened and overrun by incompetent or indifferent teachers and administrators, but good schools and school districts do exist, as do great and caring neighborhoods. The church is also a great community resource, and should be relied upon more.
So you see, I sympathesize with your argument in this post, but disagree on the assignment of blame, and your solution. The first and last line of defense is in the home, and parents have ample resources, especially the opportunity to instill a strong sense of right and wrong. A failure to do so is nobody's fault but their own.
That is one seriously hot ad...after watching it I went and bought the burger they were advertising.
I long for the good old days when Ike was putting golf balls on the White House lawn, the Clintons were crawling around in cloth diapers, and a movie theater poster of Jane Russell wearing a low cut peasant blouse was considered too risque.
I am sorry, but I was not born when Ike was golfing on the White House Lawn.
Where in what I said do I ever take away any responsibility from parents? They have a tough job... I am one and my children are parents. I fully understand what it takes to be a parent.
I also understand a difference when parents could rely on a support system. My parents did not have to monitor tv to make sure I didn't see anything inappropriate. My grandkids know that the Paris Hilton commercial would be off limits... but they would get a peek before making the decision to fire the remote.
These children have to make decisions everyday that I did not have even the most remote idea about having to make. Kids are bombarded and parents are fighting against the grain in ways we have never asked parents to do. Children never came with instructions. Parenting has always been difficult. There have been good parents and bad parents forever.
It is much more dangerous these days to have bad parents than it ever was. Good parents cannot let up for one minute. And please, let's not split hairs on who is a "good" parent and who is "bad". But I am still amazed at the level of compromise even from good parents. Sometimes people just get overwhelmed at the task. Wouldn't it be nice not to have to worry about what the kiddies were watching on TV?
No one had to worry about what I watched. No one had to worry about the movies I was seeing. No one had to worry about the commercials that could sneak past in an instant. The biggest outrage was Bill Haley and the Comets and the devil rock and roll! Good heavens, not to mention Elvis the Pelvis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.